Facebook page Ecocide Awareness NZ reports on a 1080 aerial poison drop over Mt Pirongia. This is the second report around consultation (or not) by the authorities recently. EWR
“The dirty deed is done. The poison contractors to NZ Dept of Conservation and Waikato Regional Council – Helia1 and EcoFX Ltd leave the scene of the crime, with a police escort. There was NO consultation for this aerial 1080 poison operation over Mt Pirongia and NO consent from at least 13 of the local marae and Maori tribal groups around the maunga. New Zealand laws have been broken, not least the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which these poisoning agencies try to claim they respect. What an insult to the citizens of New Zealand.”
This is an excerpt from a recent article from coranz.org.nz which deserves its own highlighting I felt. Bribery & targeting of the one or two owners is a time worn tactic of the authorities. EWR
“Private lands, which often have numerous owners, are being targeted for 1080 drops by Ospri, DOC and regional councils. A local area, Mahakirau, with 20 partners, “agreed” to poisoning on the strength of a single signature and a bribe of $10,000. At Kennedy’s Bay a group of land parcels with hundreds of different Maori owners, is to receive a 1080 drop on the say-so of just two members of the community. The lack of consultation in both operations has caused enormous friction in the particular communities. In the case of Tataraakina only one trustee gave consent for their lands to be poisoned. How much longer will these authorities be allowed to get away with this behaviour?”
With the pulling down of The Highwire YT channel recently (200K subscribers), It just further confirms the rampant censorship around the world from BigTech on important topics.
You will understand there’s a building narrative in NZ of a miracle coronavirus vaccine being just over the elusive horizon. Public debate should be held on the safety of any potentially rushed vaccine and of the possibility of mandatory or coercive use of the vaccine(s) here in NZ. Supplied below is a link to a petition on the NZ Government website, which sadly allows very little space for the info of the petition to be conveyed.
Petition request: That the House of Representatives urge the Government to ensure that the use of any coronavirus vaccine is voluntary in New Zealand and that no coercion will be applied to NZers from Government or private entities to take it.
Here is a short video posted on YT and Bitchute promoting this petition with an attached google docs link plus show notes of evidence and further information etc (see below)
Now that the petition is an official document and has been posted on the NZ Government’s website, it is hoped that this has at least protected the topic somewhat in NZ, hopefully enabling room for uncensored public debate on this topic.
OSPRI’S planning process is supposed to include stakeholder meetings (isn’t that the affected community?) and consultation with landowners, Iwi, and government agencies.
Well the community at Luggate, less than 1 km from the imminent Alice Burn East aerial 1080 drop zone, did not get a meeting. However we are told nine Iwi representatives have been consulted (really ?!) but we are not allowed to know who they are or where they live.What a very strange state of affairs !
See correspondence between Luggate resident, and member of the Luggate 1080 Action Group, Tracey Morrow, and Sam Anderson-Mangai, Senior Health Protection Officer, Public Health Service / Public Health South, Southern DHB. (He signs of the aerial 1080 drop.)
Remember, this is a Class 1A Ecotoxin with no research studies done on 1080’s impact on the unborn, and this dust is known to drift with the wind. The late Dr Scanlon raised concerns about these risks. The drop in question is near the Luggate community & an ag-pilot of 6,000 hrs flight time has just sounded a warning regarding the dangers of the current winds influencing that drift onto the small township. This is not rocket science and yet OSPRI who promised to consult, have failed to do so. Remember also what Dr Charles Baycroft said about 1080 poisoning? If you are poisoned nobody will know because the MOH are bullying Doctors NOT TO TEST FOR 1080! Please visit our page, Suspected 1080 Poisoning Cases for further information on that topic. EWR
OSPRI REFUSE TO CONSULT WITH LUGGATE COMMUNITY OVER AERIAL 1080 DROP
By Carol Sawyer
As a result of the public meeting the Luggate 1080 Action Group held in the Luggate Hotel, 21 May, 2019, a letter was sent by Cherilyn Walthew ( on behalf of the Group ) to OSPRI’s Programme Manager, Eric Chagnon, asking for OSPRI’s attendance at a public meeting to fulfil their obligations with regard to community consultation, and containing a list of questions generated from the wider community at that community meeting at the Luggate Hotel,( see attachments) That original letter is at bottom.
Here is the response received today from ???? ( Team OSPRI), and Cherilyn Walthgew’s reply to that, also today:
From: Community Relations Southern South Island <CR_SSI@ospri.co.nz> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:13 AM Subject: RE: Urgent. Outstanding questions regarding the proposed Luggate 1080 drop, 2019
Dear Cherilyn,
Thankyou for the invitation, however, OSPRI considers that all statutory obligations for the operation concerned have been met.
Your questions will be responded to as soon as possible within the required timeframe.
It is interesting that in refusing our invitation to come and meet the community for consultation to answer the pre-identified questions we have already sent you, you have now morphed from Eric Chagnon to a “faceless identity”.
The community of Luggate does not consider that you have met your statutory obligations around “public consultation” and given you assured them this would happen, it is not unreasonable to request that you uphold this commitment. Especially as this drop is to occur in what could be considered a highly populated “remote and inaccessible” area.
We are aware that in most circumstances, the residents of “remote and inaccessible” areas generally don’t “speak” however, in this case, the residents include quite a large number of people who reside in an area that has a 1km boundary from the poison operation.
These same people have raised serious health concerns with you, ranging from dust drift from the toxic class 1a ecotoxin monosodium fluoroacetate (1080) to E.coli contamination of water tributaries, that run through the village, as a result of rotting carcasses.
I feel that I really need to point out the obvious here, you have not met your obligations for public consultation as you committed to do so in 2017 for any future operation. Given your past history of nearly poisoning people outright, this is a shameful stance.
Pregnant women and those with health concerns have no wish to be guinea pigs in your experiments with this toxic poison. In the name of human decency, were you at least planning to publicly inform people when this drop is commencing so that pregnant women and mothers will have an opportunity to protect both existing and unborn children?
I will now be petitioning all relevant parties who have issued consents, for them to suspend the consents until these serious concerns can be responded to, and consulted on, in conjunction with the community.
I have included the question file for those parties who are cc’d in on this email and may not have seen these at this time.
This is very disappointing behaviour from your organisation and troubling from one that is looking for community support, yet fails to engage in any meaningful or genuine manner.
In the meantime, we will look to progress a public meeting without you.
Yours sincerely
Cherilyn Walthew
******************************************
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 2:00 PM Cherilyn Walthew wrote:
Dear Eric,
It is with alarm that I read of OSPRI’s intentions, in the Wanaka Sun, to start dropping poison around the settlement of Luggate as of the 1st June, 2019.
To date, OSPRI have not fronted for genuine consultation with the Public as was promised back in 2017 by one of your predecessors.
There are still a number of questions that the community would like you to answer prior to the commencement of your poisoning operation and given that you and your Organization appear reluctant to come and discuss this, we would like to take this opportunity, on the 1 year anniversary of your organization walking out of the last promised community consultation, to invite you to a genuine consultation event.
We are aware that your staff have made claims of being “ambushed” in the past with our questions and there have been other claims that you were concerned for the health and safety of your staff. These are very destressing claims and I can assure you there is absolutely no threat to your staff from our community however, we will also look to invite a number of other people to attend the consultation meeting including MPs, local councilors, DoC representatives, Police etc. to ensure that you feel fully comfortable in your environment.
In addition, we are including a copy of the questions that have been raised by the community in advance of our requested meeting so, that you can prepare yourselves appropriately.
We are aware that the 1080 discussion has been subject to many claims of “mis-information”, particularly around these aerial operations. Therefore, in good faith, we will appoint an independent “fact-checker” to adjudicate on the answers.
We are happy to take on the administration of arranging the meeting and co-ordinate the additional guest list if you would let us know a date that will suit you and the relevant staff members you require to attend. We will be happy to try and accommodate any date after the 11th of June. I realise this is after the date you had indicated commencement for this operation however, had you come to us earlier, we may have been in a position to arrange things a bit quicker.
In view of the lack of facilities in Luggate, our suggested venues would be either the Hawea Flat Community Hall which we can secure for free and is available on either Monday evenings or Thursday evenings after 7pm. Or, we are checking dates that the Lake Wanaka Centre is available and will forward you some dates as soon as possible. The Lake Wanaka Centre will have an associated charge and we would expect you to incur this cost as part of your community consultation budget, if this is the preferred venue.
There has been some reluctance in the past by your Organization, and associated parties, to answer these same questions however, it is a matter of public urgency that you do so, before irreparable damage is caused by your actions, as was nearly the case in 2017 with the residential water supplies.
This list of questions has been generated by the wider community at a gathering in Luggate on the 21st of May. This was coordinated by a local volunteers and is a community initiative under the collective name Luggate 1080 Action Group.
Before commencing the poison operation, we formally ask that in the spirit of human decency, you answer these questions first.
Given the urgency of this subject, please respond with your intentions by close of business on Tuesday, 4th of June so, that may continue with arranging the necessary details and ensure invites are put out to the relevant parties.
Yours sincerely and on behalf of people representing
A must watch also is Poisoning Paradise, the doco made by the GrafBoys (banned from screening on NZ TV, yet a 4x international award winner). Their website is tv-wild.com. Their doco is a very comprehensive overview with the independent science to illustrate the question marks that remain over the use of this poison. There are links also on our 1080 resources page to most of the groups, pages, sites etc that will provide you with further information.
This is a venue for pointing to the independent science you won’t read in mainstream. It is not a forum to host for and against debate, you will have to find another venue to do that. Social media is a good option. And we neither advocate nor condone violence.
Some insights on DoC here from insiders … note that familiar word ‘restructure’ the the smoke & mirror modus operandi of the corporates. When the music stops (the restructure music) … less bums on seats, more work for those who are left, more profits for CE & the likes. A post Rogernomics tactic.
Insiders pan DOC’s corporate embrace
From newsroom.co.nz
Another sign of how the Department of Conservation has lost its way, some insiders and ex-staffers say, is its embrace of corporate management methods. David Williams reports.
Faced with staff discontent, the Department of Conservation called in consultants and rolled out a suite of management tools. First there was the so-called interface project, to improve relations between scientific and operational staff. After that, there was “team process” and “reflection logs”, and, for managers, “single-point accountability”.
DOC director-general Lou Sanson, a proponent of the changes, says when he was appointed in 2013 the department was “siloed”, after two big restructures that shed 250 jobs. The new wave of staff interactions have led to huge advances, he says.
But critics say the new set of behavioural rules are another sign DOC has lost its way – showing how disconnected the leadership of the organisation’s become from the work it’s there to do. One former DOC worker says the department’s been captured by fads, which has ushered in a period of “empty change”. They paint a picture of excruciatingly awkward, hours-long meetings of unnecessary navel-gazing.
Another former DOC staffer says: “A tremendous amount of money, time and effort was being spent on what I would regard as wasted projects trying to make communication internally within the department better.”
‘Just doing his job’
A current DOC insider says the changes accentuated the decision-making authority of managers, who were encouraged to manage workers more assertively. That’s made them more sensitive to people who – like departed ecologist Nick Head – challenge authority about poor decisions.
Head was controversially suspended for sending photos to conservation organisations, after being asked to do so, of irrigation pipeline work on public conservation land. But some of his ex-colleagues say he was just doing his job and was effectively punished for speaking up about “piss-poor” decisions.
On the 6th of September the Department of Conservation aerially spread 1080 poison bait across the Mapara Reserve. The baits were also spread less than 200 metres from the Stone family home. 8 cows were killed as a result of the operation, and in this exclusive interview, the farmers involved discuss what happened, and why they’re at odds with the Department of Conservation…. click the link to view the interview … https://youtu.be/uLV1uNaTlA0
“The meetings were more like “information sessions” … “At no time did they ever stand up to the iwi authority and say ‘do you agree to us dropping 1080 out of a helicopter onto this land. At no time.”
These are familiar words around NZ these days & a characteristic of Agenda 2030 (formerly Agenda 21). The method used in these meetings that as the person says are more like information sessions, are run using a special technique called the Delphi technique. The merely give the public the illusion of having been consulted. District Councils are using it also when they consult the public on their plans. They’re getting very gung ho in my opinion. Provide these scams of consultation then fire ahead and do what they planned to do all along. We’re seeing this time after time and opposing them is very difficult. Regarding iwi consultation/partnership, in the Horowhenua recently the local Council was seen via a leaked report, to have paid a local iwi a large sum of money to halt their objection to the council’s plan for partly treated sewage disposal on wahi tapu. A Crown tactic from time immemorial, find a complicit individual or group & by pass all the rest.
Here in the case of 1080 drops it appears not all iwi had been consulted. This matter was highlighted in June this year.
The article is from stuff.co.nz
The Department of Conservation has postponed a controversial 1080 aerial drop in the Far North following outrage from iwi who say they weren’t consulted.
A small group of Whangaroa residents obtained information from DOC under the Official Information Act after hearing about its plan for an aerial drop on the 2400 hectare Whangaroa forest for winter-spring of this year to reduce pest numbers.
Spokesperson Asha Anderson said when she shared the document with the community some were shocked to see their names listed as being ‘fully supportive’ of the plan.
“In fact, the opposite was true and some had actually spoken out against 1080 at DOC’s hui,” Anderson said. “This is a serious breach of trust, and included misrepresentation of a local trust and Treaty partner.”
The Department of Conservation’s plan for a 1080 aerial drop in public and private forests in the Far North later this year is meeting growing resistance.
Critics say use of the poison over more than 60 years has had devastating effects on wildlife, killing indiscriminately, inflicting an “extremely cruel and inhumane death” that often takes days. Locals for Responsible Conservation also argue that it poisons water, including sources used by people.
“Poisoned animals are left to rot in the forest and waterways, and remain toxic for many, many months,” a spokesman said.
“Dropping deadly poison over our environment is not an acceptable practice, and it is not sustainable.
“There are many alternatives that contribute positively to our communities and our employment opportunities that do not risk our health and our environment.
“We support sustainable, responsible conservation that benefits local communities and respects our environment, including all creatures great and small.”
Meanwhile a reply to an Official Information Act request from Locals for Responsible Conservation, received in March, raised more questions, glossed over the risks and showed that DOC had misled the public about the cost of the operations and local support for the drop, the group said.
A number of the groups listed as having been consulted said they had not been, while others had wrongly been cited as supportive.
The land and property development agenda of Horowhenua District Council and council’s in-house economic development board would implode if the New Zealand Transport Agency decides not to proceed with the expressway past Levin demonstrating just how high the stakes are.
Otaki electorate MP Nathan Guy, a National Party MP, brought along National Party leader Simon Bridges and new transport minister Jami-Lee Ross to the second Levin public meeting Mr Guy has held in the last six weeks pushing for the expressway to proceed. Mr Bridges was the transport minister under the former National led Government.
The motivations of Mr Guy, in particular, are questionable in light of council’s role in land and property development which is entirely based on a November 2015 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) report commissioned by the council and the board called, “Investment in transport infrastructure: Effects on economic and demographic outlook.”
A July 6, 2016 council agenda states, “The assessment determined that the Wellington National Corridor investment represents a ‘free hit’ to Horowhenua, and creates an opportunity for the district to target population growth, employment, and economic activity levels significantly higher than both otherwise and previously expected.”
Council’s chief executive David Clapperton and economic development manager Shanon Grainger have repeatedly used forcasted growth statistics included in the NZIER report as a justification for rolling out an explosion in the number of land and development projects across the district.
Without the economic justification’s provided for in the NZIER report difficult questions would be asked of council about its close and secretive relationship with the economic development board, whose members have multimillion dollar interests in land and development and construction industries.
Council draft and consultation documents that rely on the expressway proceeding include council’s 20 year Long Term Plan, the Horowhenua growth strategy 2040 and the yet-to-be released Levin Town Centre Plan.
According to the Quotable Values database Mr Guy also has a significant amount of land and property interests in the north east sector of Levin at Koputaroa, one of the preferred expressway routes, which equates to at least $6 million over eight separate lots. The sale date of two further purchases he made in this sector is withheld from the Quotable Value database so have not been included.
If the expressway does proceed this means Mr Guy could potentially financially benefit from the expressway either through the sale of land confiscated under the Public Works Act or land and property development projects on land he owns next to the expressway route.
The decision made by NZTA could be a game changer for Horowhenua with residents facing unsustainable rates rises due to land and property development and associated negative environmental effects from an explosion in new builds connecting to an essential infrastructure council’s LTP states is ageing and end of life.
According to council’s 20 year draft and consultation documents there are no plans by council to consult the community on an economic development strategy moving into the future even though the public were not consulted on the now expired 2014-2017 economic development strategy that continues to be applied by the council.
Photo, from left, Otaki MP Nathan Guy, former Prime Minister Bill English and former Horowhenua District Council mayor Brendan Duffy at an Electra After 5 event.
Findings and assessments from the NZIER report were presented at an “After 5” event on 24 March 2016.
Horowhenua District Council has adopted a media policy that refuses to recognise media questions unless the questions are from, “a news media organisation registered by the New Zealand Companies Office.”
“Any further enquiries that are not for a news media organisation registered by the New Zealand Companies Office will be treated as Official Information Requests,” said council’s communications advisor Trish Hayward. The council also wants to know what news organisations the information is being provided to and what the deadline is.
Dr Gavin Ellis, author of ‘Complacent Nation’, a book that explores the erosion of New Zealanders’ right to know said, “The council is bound by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act’s principle of availability that states information should be made available unless there is a good reason for withholding it.”
“Nothing in the Act gives council the right to withhold information on the grounds that a publication and deadline are not given by the information seeker. I believe that, if the council refuses to supply information to a freelancer for that reason, there are good grounds for a complaint to the Ombudsman. It is useful for council officers to know the deadline to which a journalist is working but that is in order to expedite the flow of information, not to stem it,” said Dr Ellis.
The council’s media policy was adopted after questions were asked about how council was fulfilling its legislative requirement to consult on a very important 20 year 2018-2038 Long Term Plan (LTP).
This is the first time the district has been presented with a draft 20 year plan, all previous one’s have been ten year plans. Council has signalled an intention to rate the small communities of Waitarere, Hokio, Ohau, Manakau and Waikawa $106 million for new water and waste water systems due to “new growth.”
New growth that has been created by land and property developers who haven’t contributed one cent towards essential infrastructure since council voted to cancel contributions in 2015. Since then there has been an explosion of land and property development in Horowhenua.
There will only be three days before submissions on the draft 2018-2038 LTP close on 26 March if the council wait 21 days under the OIA to answer the questions.
Council has been asked (1) why public consultations are being held at the Levin Aquatic Centre instead of Te Takere that is regarded as the centre of the community? (2) Whether council has more responsibility to ensure ratepayers are fully informed considering an intention to raise $106 million for new water and waste water infrastructure in “new growth” areas? (3) why it is acceptable land and property developers haven’t contributed one cent to essential infrastructure in “growth areas” yet ratepayers are expected to pay? (4) How much does the infrastructure rate equates to in dollar terms for each affected area? (5) Given the complexity of the draft 20 year LTP whether public consultations should include more than four relatively obscure public meetings? (6) What has council been doing to consult residents that need assistance to understand the draft LTP implications (7) Why has the council called the 20 year LTP, “Consultation in preparation of 2018-2038 Long Term Plan” instead of a draft document? (8) Why has the council decided to hold so few consultations and none at Te Takere? What was the rationale behind that decision? (9) Why doesn’t council doesn’t visit marae, associations and groups around the district and tell them how they will be directly affected? (10) Wouldn’t travelling to Marae be an effective way to consult with Maori ratepayers? (11) Why is a public meeting on the Otaki to Levin North expressway considered important enough to be held at Te Takere but not the district’s LTP? (12) Why only one month for consultation on a complex and lengthy document? (13) Why is council running so many consultations simultaneous taking into consideration residents have busy lives and, unlike the council staff, are already juggling many responsibilities and obligations? (14) Does the council think the consultation process on a number of important documents simultaneously would meet the standards of the Office of the Auditor General if a governance complaint was made? (15) The draft LTP states “Look out for upcoming consultations that are outside the consultation on the LTP. The outcomes from these may result in future changes to the LTP.” Shouldn’t the LTP be informing the other consultations not the other way around?
A further illustration of how democracy in NZ has become a mere illusion. From Veronica Harrod.
Commentary; Why an Inquiry needs to be held into the business interests of Horowhenua District Council and other matters
Here’s a little story that demonstrates how and why communications is used as a weapon by Horowhenua District Council to drive strategies and plans that favour the financial interests of a small group of businessmen on the economic development board.
A communications strategy to assist the economic development board members secure outcomes favourable to their business interests was identified as one of six priorities by a council Growth Response Team comprising the Chief Executive Officer David Clapperton, Economic Development Manager Shanon Grainger and council in 2016.
Priorities include (1) Reviewing the Horowhenua Development/Growth Plan (2) Developing the Levin Town Centre Plan (3) Developing a Horowhenua Traffic Management Plan in support of the Horowhenua Development/Growth Plan and Levin Town Centre Plan (4) Investigating and establishing an Investment vehicle to drive the plans forward (5) Developing a Horowhenua 2030 Strategic Plan and developing a Communications Strategy to support the above initiatives.
The public are being “consulted” on all these plans and strategies now and council has voted to support the establishment of an Investment Trust initially comprising economic development board members which council’s chief executive David Clapperton will “assist” for the first two years. Deputy mayor Wayne Bishop voted against mayor Michael Feyen also being involved in the establishment of the trust.
Make no mistake. These plans and strategies the community are being consulted on now are entirely dedicated to advancing the interests of the economic development board. Up to 40 percent of public assets owned by council may be sold to finance the board’s new lethal toy which the Investment Trust is. Perhaps the public would prefer any sale of public assets to write down increasing debt levels or set aside for essential infrastructure projects. All the projects the Trust want to drive rely on the council plans and strategies being favourable to their business interests. Which is why we are actually at what is referred to as a tipping point. Everything is converging that will cement the board’s control of the council and the community in a final and irrevocable way.
A communications strategy that refers to the Investment Trust as “by the people for the people” is nothing more than empty words simply because it is not true. Board chair Cameron Lewis used those words to describe the Trust’s activities which is a very effective communications strategy. What’s not to love about “by the people, for the people” right? But the Investment Trust is the board’s strategy and it advances the financial interests of board members.
Holding only four relatively obscure public meetings on the district’s first, very important, draft 20 year Long Term Plan is a deliberate communications strategy. Holding the only Levin public meeting at the Aquatic Centre instead of Te Takere is a deliberate communications strategy. Interestingly enough the council considers it important enough to hold a public meeting on the new expressway at Te Takere though. Which it is but so too, surely, is it important to hold public meetings on council’s draft documents at Te Takere too. No doubt the council and Otaki MP Nathan Guy intend on whipping up community opposition to the north eastern route because it extends across land and property development projects in the north east being driven by council and land developers and included in the 2008 Horowhenua Development Plan which the community were not consulted on.
Isn’t Te Takere supposed to be the hub of the community and yet not one public meeting on council’s draft documents is being held at Te Takere. All of a sudden the Aquatic Centre has become the place where council holds public meetings. It would be bizarre nonsense if it was not able to be explained as a deliberate communications strategy. Not referring to the documents as “draft” plans is a deliberate communications strategy. In the public notices section of a community newspaper the draft 2018-2038 Long Term Plan is referred to as, “Consultation in preparation of 2018-2038 Long Term Plan.” It is not called a draft document which is very concerning.
Bombarding the public with, I have counted ten consultations so far running simultaneously, is a deliberate communications strategy. It ensures minimal public participation because the public is drowning in “consultation” documents. But the council and economic development board, when they are questioned, can turn around and say, “the public was consulted.” A complaint is being laid with the Office of the Auditor General on governance grounds.
If the public want to participate in a serious and considered way there are at least eight separate and complex documents on the 2018-2038 draft Long Term Plan alone. And that is just one draft document. Say each document is approximately 200 pages, and this is conservative, means having time, energy and capability to read approximately 2000 pages and understand complex financial information. Then after reading approximately 2000 pages the public then require the capacity to analyse the draft plans and strategies to understand the consequences of the impacts. After I read the draft Horowhenua Growth Strategy 2040 Consultation document was available on the council’s website in the “have your say” section I went to download a copy. But it wasn’t available. The growth strategy replaces its predecessor the 2008 Horowhenua Development Plan (HDP). The 2008 HDP is essential a land developers bible with 12 land development projects alone in the Levin section of the plan. Increasing urban density which the public are being “consulted” on now is recommended in the Implementation section of the 2008 HDP.
I say the word consultation in quote marks because overwhelming the public with plans and strategies and decisions can only impede not facilitate consultation. But this is a deliberate communications strategy too. The public generally think communications strategies are about informing the public. They are not. The most sophisticated communications strategy, which board member and former Satchi and Satchi head Antony Young no doubt knows a lot about, is all about manipulating communications to advance third party interests; in this case the third party interests are the economic development board’s financial interests.
But to continue with my own experience I phoned the council and asked the customer service representative who answered the phone where the growth strategy was. She looked for it and couldn’t find it. She sought assistance before telling me that the draft Horowhenua Growth Strategy 2040 was within the web link to the draft 2018-2038 Long Term Plan!! A normal person would think well, that’s pretty stupid, isn’t it. Why is a totally unrelated draft document buried underneath another draft document on a separate matter? The answer is how communications is presented is also a deliberate communications strategy.
But when I went to the link I realised I had simply been fobbed off because the draft strategy document wasn’t there either. So I phoned the council again and asked to speak to council’s communications advisor Trish Hayward and she spent some time away from the phone before coming back to me and saying a group manager had not signed it off which is why it wasn’t available. But, I said, there is a public notice saying it is available. This kind of communications behaviour is a deliberate communications strategy.
All the plans and strategies the public are being consulted on now represent the apex of the economic development board’s plan to secure their own financial interests which is why a report will be submitted to appropriate government representatives and agencies calling for an Inquiry into the business interests of Horowhenua District Council and other matters.
The argument in favour of holding an Inquiry is based on the Western Australia 1991 Commission of Inquiry into the business interests of the state government. Perth premier Brian Burke and other government representatives engaged in business dealings with several prominent businessmen including Alan Bond, who was the most well known. These dealings resulted in a loss of public money, estimated at a minimum of $600 million and the insolvency of several large corporations [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_Inc].
The main and primary results of a Royal Commission that was subsequently set up to investigate the Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters found state politicians were using their own version of our Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act inappropriately and, as it transpired, illegally to hold meetings in private to plan and scheme business deals that resulted in the loss of public funds. The Commission of Inquiry was only set up due to the actions of strong public advocacy by the activist group, People for Fair and Open Government.
This out-of-control juggernaut must be stopped in its tracks which is also why council chief executive David Clapperton should not be reappointed to the role of council chief executive. He is compromised by his close relationship with the board and his own conflict of interest. In November 2016 he set up a land development company with his wife Catherine Whitehouse which contravenes his contract with the council. He did not declare his conflict of interest for three months. When he did the council public notice did not state the general nature of the matter that would be discussed, as required by law, and the former chair of the Finance, Audit and Risk committee deputy mayor and land developer Wayne Bishop allowed him to declare the conflict of interest in a publicly excluded session of council on the grounds of “commercial sensitivity” without informing the public why that part of the meeting would be publicly excluded. Which he is required to do under the Local Government Act.
We are talking about the professional behaviour of key figures within council including Mr Clapperton and Cr Bishop. Suffice to say Cr Bishop is no longer the chair of that particular committee which, one would hope, means democracy does work except it doesn’t and it isn’t. Not in Horowhenua. The Horowhenua people don’t know what democracy looks like anymore much less what it feels like. No wonder there is a high rate of ill-health in the district. Mayor Feyen, who is also on the MidCentral District Health Board, was quoted in a local newspaper saying, “research was needed to help understand why the district’s people suffered a high incidence of health issues.” The pressures of living under a regime where the ratepayer is effectively held hostage by a council that funnels public money into private business and takes no notice of the community’s preferences is not healthy. Democracy has been eroded by the council and key figures within council that are acting on behalf of a small group of businessmen and their financial interests across Investment, construction and land development industries. The Investment Trust explicitly says council, Government and private equity will fund projects. Yes, projects that directly financially benefit board members interests. It is time to hold an Inquiry before the Trust and the economic development board convince the Government to pump economic development funds into the Trust under the guise of economic development.
Veronica Harrod is a qualified journalist with a Master of Communications specialising in traditional and new media content. Investigating and reporting on political, economic and legislative trends that negatively impact on the day to day lives of people is one of her main areas of interest. Lifestyle content she is interested in includes celebrating our own especially the tireless work community advocates do as civil citizens participating in democracy to keep those in power on their toes. In a media age dominated by a multi billion dollar communications and public relations industry paid to manipulate information to protect and advance the interests of the few over the many there have to be journalists who are impervious to the all pervasive influencial role they have over local and central government and corporate interests.
For more information on Veronica’s professional qualifications see her Facebook page.
You can find more of Veronica’s articles by entering her name in the search box.
This whole raruraru (trouble) in Whitianga and beyond, demonstrates that the Department of Conservation is dysfunctional, and treats local residents and local government alike with arrogance.
The public experiences the Department of Conservation as a law unto itself. It does not inform local authorities, it does not follow its own consultation guidelines, and it breaches statutes.
For example, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act under which DoC receives consents for aerial poisoning requires :
caution where there is scientific or technical uncertainty ( Section 7);
Here are three items introducing the Delphi Technique, used globally in those meetings where you’re consulted, yet you still feel railroaded and haven’t been heard at all. It’s not your imagination. This is a real eye opener. It’s how their agenda (Agenda 21/30) is carried out without your knowing. Hence all the public-excluded meetings these days when they discuss the real agenda with the chosen few. If you’re not on their page you’ll be excluded. And Councils use this technique it when ‘consulting’ you. On the public stuff, making you think you’ve had input. Do read these articles, they’re not too long. The definition of consultation for LG’s own magazine tells you the decision’s already been made, then your views are sought. Excerpt below… ‘5. Engagement vs Consultation’:
First article by Lyn Stuter
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “Lay, or community, participation in the decisionmaking process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the “Alinsky Method” (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The “change agent” or “facilitator” goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms “task forces,” “urges everyone to make lists,” and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument the “weak or noncommittal.”
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes “devil’s advocate.” He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the “divide and conquer” technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear “ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic.” He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The “targets” rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
A further article on the Delphi Technique by Abert V Burns
Let’s Stop Being Manipulated
More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.
The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.
However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.
How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.
First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.
It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”
Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.
The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.
Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.
On Oct 8, 2014, MTC held a meeting to discuss the Public Participation Plan for the next round of Plan Bay Area 2017. Their agenda was to force people to sit at tables. This is classic Delphi Technique to stifle dissent. When they tried to force people to tables after the general presentation, Mimi Steel, Peter Singleton, and Margaret Gordon forced the issue of having public comments first. MTC reneged under pressure and allowed public comments. The result was a major outcry from most of the participants that the meetings are rigged and that public input, even if presented, is completely ignored because MTC and ABAG already have determined the policies and are just checking the square because “public participation” is required but actual public input that does not support the plan can be ignored.
This investigative article about the Horowhenua district is from journalist Veronica Harrod. Read her bio at the end of the article. She raises points which are puzzling people NZ wide, and lifts the curtain somewhat to let you see what is going on in meetings you are not entitled to attend. (From this site’s perspective, please check out our Agenda 21/2030 in NZ and our Local Govt Watch pages. Also search Agenda 21/2030 in categories to left of page). I read an interesting article at the LG’s website recently about consultation (raised at the end of this article). It certainly does indicate (& in the context of quite a bit of jest, taking the proverbial pee as it were) that the decision’s already been made when you are ‘consulted’. EnvirowatchRangitikei
Massive Rates Rises Predicted in Horowhenua that will Subsidise Land Developers Reaping Potential Profits of over $100 Million
by Veronica Harrod
Horowhenua land developers and investors will reap at least $100 million profit from not having to pay development contributions towards essential infrastructure costs that council seems intent to load onto existing ratepayers who could face massive, crippling rates increases.
The majority of councils in the country charge development contributions because the policy is regarded as the only effective, fair and equitable way to reduce the impact of expensive infrastructure costs on existing ratepayers.
The Horowhenua District Council scrapped development contributions in 2015 but, judging by the extent of land development planned behind closed doors by land developers and council since 2008, it would be unconscionable if council did not re-introduce the levy on land developers.
Exponential rates rises have historically been used by council’s as a sure fire way to free up land for development by confiscating land from ratepayers who can’t afford high rate increases which will directly have an impact on a large number of home and land owners in the district living on fixed or low incomes.
If the council does not include development contributions in the 2018-2038 Long Term Plan (LTP) the profits made by land developers will be unsustainable and grossly unfair to existing residents.
The $100 million profit projections are based on a conservative estimate of $15,000 per new build if development contributions were charged including a minimum of 2100 new house builds in Levin alone totalling $31.5 million contained in a council’s 2008 Horowhenua Development Plan.
Land developer and deputy mayor Wayne Bishop’s 500 house build in Kimberley Road has financially benefited by approximately $750,000. Cr Bishop also has four other land developments which means he has personally financially benefited by at least one million dollars by not having to pay development contributions.
He declared a conflict of interest at the eleventh hour only when a vote was taken by council to stop charging development contributions. During all the debates he sat at the council table which may have affected councillors ability to speak freely against council intention to stop collecting development contributions. It is also only since his election to council that council has proceeded with such a massive scale of land development.
Also included in the profit estimates is the potential affect of relaxing urban housing density rules to allow for sub-division and building of two houses on one house lot which council is deliberating on now. Neighbours would not have to be consulted on increased urban density plans due to changes to the Resource Management Act made by the National led government early this year that favours land developers. Potential profits also include proposed land developments in other parts of the district contained in separate reports available at http://www.horowhenua.govt.nz/…/Plans-Strategies/Horowhenua…
The HDC scrapped development contributions in 2015
Evidence council is determined to pursue a land growth agenda is also contained in the council report on relaxing urban density rules which negligently and deliberately omitted to include any environmental and cultural costs of land development even though all the new builds would connect to the existing infrastructure, and even though there is evidence of environmental and cultural costs documented in past council reports including the 2008 Horowhenua Development Plan.
Cr Neville Gimblet and council’s chief executive David Clapperton have made comments recently alluding to the scale of land development and the expectation existing ratepayers would pay for them. Mr Clapperton said in a recent newspaper article, “I see some huge opportunities for the Horowhenua that have never been seen before, probably in the last three generations. And I’m adamnant that I want to be part of that journey.”
His comments were made despite consultation on the 20 year Long Term Plan only just starting indicating he is a central, local cog in the wheel of a land development agenda that has captured the council to such an extent democracy itself is being deliberately undermined by the very organisation that is supposed to uphold democratic principles.
Cr Gimblett alluded to the impact of the high cost of replacing essential infrastructure on existing ratepayers in a newspaper column when he said he was “surprised no-one commented on the $2.8 million of unfunded depreciation in the financial report.” Depreciation is a method used to account for future costs of essential infrastructure by acknowledging wear and tear and need for replacement over time.
“While depreciation is not a cash item so has little impact today, it is a key feature of sustainable long term planning and ultimately your rates,” he stated before warning ratepayers that, “Officers and elected members are currently involved in multiple workshops to prepare for the next Long Term Plan, where we will be mindful of this financial constraint hanging over our heads.”
If Cr Gimblet is so “mindful of the financial constraints” then it would stand to reason he supports the reintroduction of development contributions as this levy on land developers would not only immediately solve the problem of funding depreciation costs but also potentially provide enough money to ensure state of the art essential infrastructure designs were built and maintained. Nevertheless he didn’t mention re-introducing development contributions he only mentioned the cost to existing ratepayers.
The democratically elected mayor Michael Feyen has been effectively sidelined because he is viewed as a threat to this cabal of unrestrained and unrestricted land developers and their investors as during the last local body elections he said he was going to make environmental concerns and Lake Horowhenua a priority.
No matter who Mayor Feyen subsequently turned to in seeking redress to reign in the power of an unelected chief executive David Clapperton not one minister of the last National led government would lift a finger to assist him. Local Government New Zealand would not assist him either.
Mr Clapperton also has the support of nine out of ten councillors, excluding Cr Ross Campbell, who are rewarded handsomely for their backing by favourable treatment in appointments to committees and other council led opportunities.
Local National Party MP Nathan Guy has also refused to take action to restore democracy in Horowhenua but, as a recent article in a local newspaper stated, Mr Guy has got the largest property and land portfolio of all acting Government ministers including an extensive amount of Horowhenua rural land, a family home, two rental properties, interests in 13 commercial properties and a Wellington property.
Land developer and investor interest in developing housing subdivisions on at least 550 hectares in the north east of Levin, that extends across Mr Guy’s rural property interests, may also be using their influence with the now acting Government to ensure the highway of national significance is built to the west of Levin instead of the East of Levin. Cr Bishop has certainly stated a preference the new highway be built to the west of Levin.
As if it’s not enough that local Maori and residents of Hokio on the west of Levin have to endure the Levin Sewage Treatment Plant, the landfill, the infamous smelly “pot” behind the landfill and a polluted Lake Horowhenua now moves are afoot to ensure the new highway won’t get in the way of land developers and their investor interest in the East of Levin.
The excessive profit margins land developers and their investors will potentially make helps to explain the increasing interest major land and property developers, that have previously only operated in Auckland and Wellington, now have in Horowhenua.
Horowhenua’s community housing sold for a fire sale price of $5.25 million
The first sign the district saw of this burgeoning interest was the purchase of the council owned pensioner housing and 1.1 hectare of bare land by land and property developer Willis Bond in a publicly excluded deal with council for a fire sale price of $5.25 million. Anecdotal evidence is Willis Bond owners the McGuinness brothers count now acting Attorney General Chris Finlayson as a friend.
As Attorney General Mr Finlayson administers the Crown Law office that relentlessly pursues criminal charges against Lake Horowhenua kaitiaki Philip Taueki who continues to give voice to inconvenient truths about Lake Horowhenua ownership and pollution by the council and regional council. Other state agencies have also demonstrated a partisan approach in matters to do with Mr Taueki.
In her recently published e-book “Man of Convictions” Anne Hunt* says Horowhenua District Council waived all fees and granted the consent to decommission the buildings and disconnect the water from Mr Taueki’s residence six days after several men and six or seven police arrived at his place one morning and began sledgehammering and dismantling the building and power to the building. They also attempted to turn his water supply off then too.
When Mr Taueki, “complained to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment about the way the Horowhenua District Council as a building consent authority handled this matter…initially the Ministry expressed concern, but ultimately decided to take no action. The Tenancy Tribunal was equally dismissive.”
Mr Taueki is under constant threat of arrest and imprisonment and, although it is illegal to turn the water supply off to his residence at Lake Horowhenua, the council continues to do so and not one state agency intervenes on his behalf even though he has been left without a water supply for over eight months.
He has been beaten up, shot at, threatened with murder, thrown in jail, forced to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and denied physical access to the very lake he is kaitiaki and one of the owners of by numerous trespass orders.
He is currently facing a retrial of one of the trespass notices he has been acquitted of twice after Crown Law, an office administered by Mr Finlayson, appealed an acquittal of the charge and the appeal was granted by a judge. His case has been delayed until January 2018 because the Crown did not disclose information to defence lawyer Michael Bott when the retrial began last month in Levin District Court.
Allegations of bias by the Courts against Mr Taueki has also been made by Hunt who writes that Mr Finlayson has been responsible for appointing, “all bar one of the six Supreme Court judges, all ten Court of Appeal judges and 75% of the High Court judges….in a process without any statutory constraints or regulations.”
Despite the fact “Man of Convictions” is written by a local resident and respected journalist, author and former Horowhenua district councillor Anne Hunt about the horrendous experiences and treatment of a Lake Horowhenua kaitiaki whose ancestor is the renowned paramount chief of Mua-Upoko neither of the two local newspapers have expressed any interest in interviewing her.
Openly flouting media independence on council reporting the Fairfax owned Horowhenua Mail has now employed council’s former communications officer Kelvin Teixeira which does not bode well for impartial reporting of council communications Mr Teixeira has helped develop and carry out on behalf of the council.
But it is the Crown’s lack of actions to date that disturbingly suggest a collusion with a Horowhenua land development agenda even though it is destined to greatly increase pollution levels to Lake Horowhenua. The Lake Accord, set up to rehabilitate the health of the lake, remains silent about the impact an exponential increase of new builds connected to the existing insufficient and ageing infrastructure will have on Lake Horowhenua.
Hunt says, “Levin’s stormwater system is a major source of phosphorous, and it is this chemical that is the major cause of the cyanobacteria that has plagued the lake in recent years, making it lethal for children. In his 2012 report, Dr Max Gibbs referred to research that 80% of the lake’s phosphorous chemical content comes from the town’s stormwater system.”
“A report prepared for the Horowhenua District Council by Dr Chris Tanner, a principal scientist from NIWA (the Crown Research Institute) commented on the ‘significant
potential health effects from these drain flows,’ without even considering ‘potential toxicity issues with other contaminants such as metals or organics in the discharge from this drain’ she quoted from Dr Tanner’s report.
An apparently deliberate refusal to reintroduce development contributions is essentially undemocratic because it put the interests of the few above the many and makes a mockery of the consultation process of a LTP residents and ratepayers will be bound by for the next twenty years.
Even though council has been having workshop meetings about priorities of the LTP one public consultation held at Te Takere last week had no information at all about the council’s intentions which gives the public little to respond to. There were two councillors, a desk and a lot of free pens but no substance about what council has been discussing in publicly excluded workshops about council’s LTP priorities which makes it a faux consultation on one of the most important issues facing ratepayers today.
Although it might be confusing to understand why the council would refuse to reintroduce the levy on land developers one powerful reason for doing so is it appears the council is prepared to drive out existing residents by imposing unsustainable rates rises in favour of new residents who are regarded as more desirable.
The emphasis on making the district attractive to new residents is highlighted in communications from council on the LTP consultations which promotes the concept of making the district attractive for “those that are moving here” and concerns already exist about the statement by council in a two page newspaper feature, “…all submissions will be considered by elected members and the plan adjusted as they see fit.”
One has to wonder whether the LTP has already been pre-determined if councillors are only going to adjust the LTP “as they see fit.”
(*NOTE: you can download and read Anne Hunt’s ebook at the link provided.)
Veronica Harrod is a qualified journalist with a Master of Communications specialising in traditional and new media content. Investigating and reporting on political, economic and legislative trends that negatively impact on the day to day lives of people is one of her main areas of interest. Lifestyle content she is interested in includes celebrating our own especially the tireless work community advocates do as civil citizens participating in democracy to keep those in power on their toes. In a media age dominated by a multi billion dollar communications and public relations industry paid to manipulate information to protect and advance the interests of the few over the many there have to be journalists who are impervious to the all pervasive influencial role they have over local and central government and corporate interests.
For more information on Veronica’s professional qualifications see her Facebook page.
WHAT CAN WE DO? The current elected Mayor campaigned on more transparency & more public inclusion. In light of that do your best to attend the HDC meetings in Levin, hear what is happening & get speaking rights to express to Council matters that affect you. The meetings are held 6 weekly and dates are found on the HDC website, FB page or by phoning them.
More (what I call) dodgy District Council goings on here, and just down the line. To learn what LG’s definition of ‘consultation’ is go to this link: https://issuu.com/contrafed/docs/lg_dec_1612_issuu/24 It differs somewhat from the person on the street’s I’d say.
As was observed in several posts last year, the council’s bureaucratic elite spends huge amounts of Ratepayers’ money on expensive outside consultants, usually Auckland based. Their ideas are then turned into plans and pursued. Period.
There are multiple ‘consultation’ documents on different topics released each year, full of expensively produced fancy graphics, because there is a requirement under the Local Government Act (see this post) that the public are consulted. But it’s apparent that the most that can be expected from this process is minor tweaking. The substance will remain unchanged.
What happens after tens of millions of dollars are squandered on useless projects? No problem, they’ll just tax the Ratepayers even more to repeat that. In the ten years from 2006 to 2016 our own Rates including the water charges went up 61% — general inflation in that same time was 20%. A real increase of 41%.
This important information from William McGregor concerns a matter currently the subject of public consultation … the North end of Foxton’s main street. Mr McGregor is Manawhenua. He was born of this rohe (region) and is a Kaitiaki – (Guardian) of what his Tupuna (Ancestors) left behind.
The cenotaph in Foxton’s main street, currently the subject of consultation by HDC
Kia ora mai tatou katoa ….
To say I am “passionate” about the Cenotaph at the Northern end of Main St. Foxton is an understatement, and here’s why ….
It is of VITAL importance to understand a few things first – there is a MAJOR difference in understanding when two (or more) “Cultures” merge, yet VERY FEW apply simple RESPECT to the fact that “we” ARE DIFFERENT in what we say/mean …. and therein lies the problem. Bear with me ….
To those of you who have read the “Fiftieth Jubilee” (1888 – 1938) of Te Awahou, you would note the mention of Ihakara Tukumaru as being the “Paramount Chief” of the locality, and, because of HIS “friendly & peaceful outlook”, that “European Settlement” was easy & rapid. (Paraphrasing)
In 1843, Rev. James Duncan settled over on Matakarapa (the land Te Rauparaha “tuku’d” (gifted) to Ihakara Tukumaru) and he stayed there until he moved across the river onto ANOTHER piece of “land” that Ihakara, (AND HIS PEOPLE) “gifted him”, in appreciation for the work he (Duncan) was doing for the local Maori on a Spiritual level.
Earliest records show there was a old “Native” Meeting house where the Cenotaph stands today.
It was replaced with a Church and that’s quite possibly because of Rev. James Duncan’s work with the Natives, in bringing “God” into their lives. We can only speculate ….
What we KNOW is that there was an ANCIENT “burial ground” there, that contained “Natives” BEFORE the Settlers arrived, and some of Te Awahou’s (Foxton’s) earliest Settlers were interred there …. Why? – BECAUSE THAT WAS the cemetery!
Avenue Road, Lady’s mile etc. WEREN’T EVEN “established” yet!
Here’s where you need to use your imagination ….
BEFORE the Settlers came to Aotearoa, the “Natives” DIDN’T bury their loved ones in “regimental lines” that you see today!
They buried them by trees, boulders, hills – where-ever the terrain allowed; there was NO “right way/wrong way” – that’s just how it was!
Now *NOTE –
When Settlers died, the “Undertaker” took the corpse away and attended the body and the funeral was held – DONE!
When “Maori” died, it’s as it is today – we sleep with the body, we cover it with cuddles/kisses – we loath when the three days are up; this is the FINAL ACT of our loved one’s “earth” journey …. their Spiritual journey BEGINS ….
These understandings of our “loved ones” FINAL JOURNEY is VASTLY DIFFERENT, and THAT’S O.K.! It is what it is! But, it needs to be acknowledged!
So, HERE’S MY POINT –
When Ihakara Tukumaru (and HIS PEOPLE) tuku’d that piece of whenua (land) to the PEOPLE OF TE AWAHOU, they KNEW who was buried there, they would have EXPECTED that the remains of both Maori AND Settlers alike to be RESPECTED as their FINAL RESTING PLACE!
I heard it said “But, when something is given as a “gift”, you have no say after that as to what happens to that “gift””!
I say “If it was a piece of whenua (land) “EXCESS TO NEED”, of NO CONSEQUENCE, then yes – walk away – it doesn’t have any significance to anyone”.
But that’s NOT THE CASE HERE – for (indeed) Ihakara HIMSELF is buried there! And so are other members of his Whanau – in fact, even some Immediates!
When the Cenotaph was put in place (1920) “koiwi” (human remains) were unsettled – it was an accident – it can be forgiven…. I believe it IS forgiven.
But, to go back and unsettle MORE koiwi – KNOWING that there are MANY over a VERY BIG AREA still there, is SACRILEGE; it is WANTON DESTRUCTION and (because it is known what is there) that “act” is NOT FORGIVABLE!
And FOR WHAT …. a few people’s VANITY?! WHY?! The Cenotaph is a memorial to those who died for Te Awahou – and like my Tupuna, I say – LET THEM “REST IN PEACE”! Ake, ake, ake – Amene.
William McGregor
Note:
I attended the first meeting and considering what’s being said here by Mr McGregor, nowhere did I see official acknowledgement of the fact that beneath that cenotaph is an urupa (cemetery) in spite of the fact that HDC claims to respect their relationship with Iwi and wahi tapu. You can read their official statement on that at their website. Here is a relevant excerpt from there:
Through its decision-making processes, Council recognises the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and kaitiakitanga, providing for the relationship of Maori and their traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.
Concerning the Consultation
Regarding this part of the street restructure, there has been one consultation meeting so far, led by a facilitator. Had the HDC had their way this cenotaph would likely have been moved already. Last year they arranged for a blessing of it prior to their street revamp plans and the original plan was to see it moved. However both tangata whenua and other local citizens of Foxton protested with a peaceful sit in to express their grievances. The final disbanding of that process happened following a meeting with protest leader William McGregor and other protest representatives, the CE of HDC and a Police mediator. A promise was made it was said to those present (which HDC now flatly deny – article to follow shortly on that) that no more work would be done either beyond Wharf Street or to the cenotaph without further public consultation and this has been the main bone of contention. Lack of proper consultation. Many folk simply want the street left as is, aside from a tidy up, and the $1.6 million spent on what they see as more urgent priorities like clean drinking water, opening the river loop and paying down the $68 million council debt which they know will inevitably hit their pockets in the form of raised rates. The next protest in March this year concerned all of these issues and the fact that HDC was said to be reneging on their word. There was a letter from three HDC Councillors circulated to all households the day the second protest started citing the original agreement between parties at the cenotaph protest claiming the promise was about the cenotaph only. It was signed by the CE. Who ever heard of the validity of an ‘agreement’ though, with the signature of only ONE party to the agreement on it? Imagine the Treaty of Waitangi with only Governor Hobson’s signature. Hardly credible is it?
The other thing is, none of those attendees of the said meeting ever received a copy! (Well not until they cleared their junk mail at the end of the day the March protest started that is).
On the note of consultation, as set out on the HDC website/info, consultation is defined as to:
Provide easy-to-understand summaries of proposals and plans
Identify who will be affected by decisions and encourage them to make their views known to the council
In addition:
councils also must give reasons for their decisions and
Find out what all the practical options are for dealing with issues and carefully assess them
I have spoken with the facilitator & asked how many meetings there would be. There are three altogether, the first was for all parties including the public to contribute their ideas. The second is by invitation only (due I’m told, to numbers) and will concern key stakeholders. Stakeholders are the public, Iwi and business people from the main street. Certain property owners will be invited, I’m not sure about the renters of property. That was not too clear.
The second meeting will take place after all the comments are collated and we have no date yet for that. The third meeting will be public allowed, and excuse my cynicism but I’d say it will be all done and dusted by then. The decision that is. Here’s hoping I’m wrong.
And who makes the final decision? Council does. If you would like to contact the facilitator I’m sure HDC would enable that. If not contact us. And keep yourself up to date on meeting announcements by visiting HDC’s website regularly.
Amid outcries that the public were consulted on the $1.6 million main street upgrade, we heard on the street today from a woman who had done some footwork of her own on the issue. Last October 2016 HDC hosted a consultation meeting with retailers at the Masonic premises in Foxton. It was by invitation. The day after that meeting she spoke to pretty much all of the retailers along the main street to ask if they’d received an invitation to the meeting the day before. Turns out she encountered more than eight people (representing eight shops) who knew nothing of the meeting and who never received an invitation. Now one or maybe two omissions would be understandable in light of an imperfect postal system or other human error, however eight is quite a lot to pass off under those reasons. With such a major spend up of $1.6 million, surely a follow up courtesy call to the mailed invitations would be standard procedure? And why did at least eight retailers not receive an invitation? A little shoddy don’t you think?
So what is the definition of consultation?
consultation
kɒnsəlˈteɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the action or process of formally consulting or discussing.
“they improved standards in consultation with consumer representatives”
synonyms:discussion, dialogue, discourse, debate, negotiation, conference,deliberation, “the recommendations include increased consultation with local people”. SOURCE
Are you being asked what you want? Or are you being told what is going to happen?
Consultation: are you being asked what you want and listened to? Or are you being told at those meetings what is going to happen?
We are frequently nowadays being given the illusion we’ve been consulted and as we all know in the Horowhenua true consultation hasn’t REALLY been happening witness the current outcry about the street upgrade, and the above being one example of that.
Now, consider the REAL reason you’re not being consulted PROPERLY. The people of Chilmington Green in the UK have encountered similar to what NZ districts are encountering (download their pdf file about this). Districts world wide in fact have encountered the same. The real reason is contained the UN’s Agenda 21 plan. (You can read/watch more on that at these pages, be sure to check the Agenda 21 sub pages) on the site. This is about the UN plan for global governance (aka the new world order) spoken often about by world leaders since the early 1990s. It is:
Anaction plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world …. Rosa Koire
Agenda 21 / 2030
I notice now, the local media is saying Council goings-on are being called a conspiracy by the public… thing is, they want to dismiss any questioning of their activities as conspiratorial. In fact, Agenda 21 is anything but conspiratorial. It is a bona fide UN document available for download on their website link here (aka Global Governance … our ex Labour PM is working on it as we speak). Because it’s so very long very few will ever read it however we now have the benefit of hindsight as councils worldwide are implementing it (including NZ) and while it comes under the guise of the great ideal, ‘sustainable development’ (found all over our council websites) … again with hindsight, we all know that what councils and central government are doing is far from sustainable. We know this is pure lip service. We can only swim in 40% of our waterways people. Read further on how Agenda 21 is affecting and will continue to affect you …
Go to our Agenda 21 pages including the sub page Agenda 21 in NZ and watch the videos also. Whistleblowers world wide have analyzed these plans with a fine tooth comb and you have the benefit of hearing what they’ve found, including what is happening now. Read our recent post on the Australian family who lost their farm to foreclosure. Listen to ex Australian politician Anne Bressington also on this.
Local people gathering on Monday for their peaceful protest concerning HDC’s lack of consultation with the community of Foxton
A Foxton tangata whenua representative, William McGregor, and other locals have organized a peaceful sit in at the town’s cenotaph. There is a lot of history behind this part of town which was the original Te Awahou settlement (Te Awahou is Foxton’s real name) . The local Horowhenua District Council has plans to move the cenotaph and do up the main street at the obscene cost of $1.6 million.
The people want the cenotaph to remain where it is. Council, in keeping with their plans, held a last minute blessing of the area last week in readiness for the moving day. This demonstrates the extent of their commitment to consultation. At that ceremony those officiating with regard to the blessing diplomatically acknowledged it was out of respect for those fallen in the wars and those buried there that they came.
The last minute blessing organized by HDC last week
The Council is already in debt to the tune of $100+ million, according to two councilors, however Mayor Brendan Duffy claims the debt is only $68 million. Either figure, it is still too much and some wise spending is in order.
What the local people really want is clean water, however the Council claims the water if fine and the Mayor says on FB that he drinks it. It is in fact regularly a brown colour and is highly infused with chlorine, a known carcinogen. Chlorine of course is the sticking plaster for pollution that most DCs don’t want to spend money on cleaning up. Witness the fact we can no longer swim in 40% of our ‘clean green’ rivers. The Horowhenua also has an horrific track record of disposing of its waste into the local waterways.
That aside, the point is, nobody (except a few shop owners apparently) wants the street to be narrowed with gardens replacing many parking spaces. Nevertheless, Council has already had contractors demolish the old Council building, old records and all. Antique books have been left lying in the rain where they fell.
So, the beef that locals have with the council is that people weren’t consulted. It’s said RSA was, however it turns out dozens of RSA members who’ve dropped by the protest claim they were not asked. They’ve also added photographs of the fallen soldiers onto the base of the cenotaph. I think Council are in for a rough ride and this is the price they pay for not consulting with the people they’re supposed to be working for.
A tent has been erected next to Ihakara Gardens for the protesters to stay in, and gifts of food and supplies have been pouring in from the public, including local businesses. They’re in for the long hall.
For as long as I’ve been following the lack of consultation issue over the street changes, our local representative in Council, Cr Michael Feyen, has said repeatedly he’s been left out of the consultation loop and in spite of requests has not been shown any plans for the street. Yesterday however, the HDC issued a press release replete with plans and history, and also denying the claims they’ve not consulted locals. The sit in organizers claim the details in the press release are simply not true. They are the tangata whenua and they know if they’ve been consulted or not. They haven’t. For further information on that visit Cr Michael Feyen’s FB page.
Although HDC’s website claims partnership & consultation with local iwi, it appears to be just lip service. This became evident with the Shannon waterways pollution & what ensued there. Little if any respect for tangata whenua.
Radio NZ has published an article on this … you can read it at this link.
The latest news from Cr Feyen’s FB page at 5pm today is, Mayor Duffy and CEO Clapperton are at the site in discussions with the organizers. However, note, Foxton’s own District Councilor, their own representative, is not privy to that discussion. Not allowed.
So much for democracy & consultation. I rest my case.
pilot
Environmental Health Watch NZ 
You must be logged in to post a comment.